The Exhibitor (1960)

43 Years of Service to the Theatre Industry Founded in 1918, Published weekly by Jay Emanuel Publications, Incorporated. Publishing ofTice: 244-248 North Clarion Street, Philadelphia 7, Pennsylvania. New York field office: 8 East 52nd Street, New York 22. West Coast field office: Paul Manning, 454 S. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, Calif. London Bureau; Jock MacGregor, 16 Leinster Mews, London, W. 2, England. Jay Emanuel, publisher; Paul J. Greenhaigh, general manager; Albert Erlick, editor; M. R. (Mrs. "Chick") Lewis, associate editor; George Frees Nonamoker, feature editor; Mel Konecoff, New York editor; Albert J. Martin, advertising manager; Max Cades, business manager. Subscriptions: $2 per year (50 issues); and outside of the United States, Canada, and Pan-American countries. $5 per year (50 issues). Special rates for two and three years on application. Second class postage paid at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Address all official communications to the Philadelphia publishing office. Volume 65 • No. 4 DECEMBER 21, 1960 "THE PHILADELPHIA STORY"— ANOTHER VERSION This is a mystifying business we’re in. We follow it day by day, and sometimes it bewilders us. Imagine, therefore, how diffieult it must be for outsiders, sueh as judges and juries, to make sense out of the often senseless twists and turns in distributor-exhibitor negotiations. Currently, in the Philadelphia courts, the Viking Theatre, an independently operated first-run house, is suing distribu¬ tors and circuit competitors. The Viking management charges it is being discriminated against in the awarding of first-run product. They have refused to settle the case out of court and insist that the entire situation be given a thorough airing. MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITOR is neither a judge nor a jury, and we are not in the business of distributing pictures. Certain facts have come to light which raise some serious questions about our lawyer-ridden industry, however, and we think it is time that the light of industry attention were focused in this direction. Warner Brothers asked for competitive bids among the Philadelphia first-runs on “THE SUNDOWNERS,” and the Viking responded. The terms offered included a guaranteed film rental of not less than the net box office receipts grossed during the first seven days of the engagement, which means 100 per cent of the week’s gross, with the distributor to re¬ ceive 90 per cent of each week’s net box office receipts after deducting $4,975 per week for house expenses during follow¬ ing weeks. It was also the distributor’s right to determine when the Viking playdate should end. Available date was to be Dec. 27, and the theatre agreed to this also. We know something about the Philadelphia territory, and we can tell you there is nothing close-fisted about this bid. Will the Viking play the picture? Absolutely not. Was the film awarded to a competing first-run? Again, absolutely not. With the city’s first-run outlets lessened by the rash of hardticket attractions, “THE SUNDOWNERS” will not play downtown at all. Instead it will break in a saturation neigh¬ borhood run on Christmas Day. Lest you think the grossing potential isn’t there at the Viking, let us look at the figures for another attraction by the same film company, “BABY DOLL.” Playing the same Viking Theatre, it grossed $30,000 in the first week, $18,530 in the second, $12,382 in the third, and $9,644 in the fourth. The grossing potential is there, and after a successful downtown engagement, the key neighborhood houses will still be around. As we said, we are neither judge nor jury. Some of the legal footwork in distributing films is difficult to follow, and this new version of “THE PHILADELPHIA STORY” fits that pattern perfectly. Any wonder that the court calendars are crowded? As one of our favorite comic strip characters says, “It’s confoozin’, but not amoozin’.” TO A NEW AND BETTER YEAR The holiday season is a happy time. Petty differences are forgotten (for a little while at least) and we spend more time looking for the silver lining behind that cloud. We watch 1960 fade with less than real regret, and look with renewed hope to 1961. In these pages, we are present¬ ing a preview of some of the screen fare we hope will make 1961 a memorable year. The staff of MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITOR wish you and yours a happy, healthy, prosperous New Year. Our reso¬ lution— to serve you in the future even better than we have in the past. EDDIE AND LIZ AND $7,250,000 Most thoughtful industryites must be pardoned a grin over the, recent libel actions that have been filed against the publishers and editors of seven big fan mags. Aggregating $7,250,000, the six actions find Louis Nizer as attorney for the plaintiffs— and he is known not to take cases unless he is reasonably sure he can win them. So, at least in this one case, the fan mags and scandal mongers, who make reputa¬ tions and tons of “soap opera” circulations out of ‘Tcey hole” journalism, are going to be made responsible for their quota¬ tion marks and for their claimed intimacies with famous names. As two normal citizens, Eddie and Liz Fisher are entitled to the privacy of their home— and of their bedroom. Anyone violating that privacy should be hit where it hurts. We have an idea that $7,250,000 represents a whole lot of hurt!